[Cost analysis of GreenLight photoselective vaporization of the prostate versus standard transurethral resection of the prostate: Benefit of ambulatory care]. / Analyse des coûts de la photovaporisation prostatique au laser Greenlight versus résection transurétrale de la prostate : intérêt de la prise en charge ambulatoire.

PURPOSE: To compare the costs associated with GreenLight XPS 180W photoselective vaporization of the prostate (PVP) for an outpatient versus standard transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) with a three nights hospitalization in a French private hospital. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective cost minimization analysis was performed between 2017 and 2019 in a French private hospital for the hospital stays associated with TURP and PVP procedures for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). The peri-operative cost-benefit assessment of the two procedures was analyzed from the establishment's point of view according to the micro-costing method. RESULTS: 871 surgical treatment for BPH had been performed during the period of the study, including 743 photoselective laser vaporization (85%). The average length of stay of patients undergoing TURP was 3,7 days versus 0,9 days for PVP including 64,7% ambulatory. The cost-benefit was more of 500€ per patient in favor of ambulatory PVP compared with TURP in conventional three nights hospitalization for level 1 hospital stays. CONCLUSION: In this private hospital center, ambulatory PVP seemed more cost-effective than TURP with a three nights hospitalization for a severity level 1 patient. The financial profit for the establishment was mostly due to reduction of the main length of stay and ambulatory care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Active Surveillance for Men with Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Optimal treatment of intermediate risk prostate cancer remains unclear. National Comprehensive Cancer Network® guidelines recommend active surveillance, prostatectomy or radiotherapy. Recent trials demonstrated no difference in prostate cancer specific mortality for men undergoing active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer compared to prostatectomy or radiotherapy. The use of active surveillance for intermediate risk prostate cancer is less clear. In this study we characterize U.S. national trends for demographic, clinical and socioeconomic factors associated with active surveillance for men with intermediate risk prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study examined 176,122 men diagnosed with intermediate risk prostate cancer from 2010 to 2016 in the National Cancer Database. Temporal trends in demographic, clinical and socioeconomic factors among men with intermediate risk prostate cancer and association with the use of active surveillance were characterized. The analysis was performed in April 2020. RESULTS: In total, 176,122 men were identified with intermediate risk prostate cancer from 2010 to 2016. Of these men 57.3% underwent prostatectomy, 36.4% underwent radiotherapy and 3.2% underwent active surveillance. Active surveillance nearly tripled from 1.6% in 2010 to 4.6% in 2016 (p <0.001). On multivariate analysis use of active surveillance was associated with older age, diagnosis in recent years, lower Gleason score and tumor stage, type of insurance, treatment at an academic center and proximity to facility, and attaining higher education (p <0.05). Race and comorbidities were not associated with active surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight increasing active surveillance use for men with intermediate risk prostate cancer demonstrating clinical and socioeconomic disparities. Prospective data and improved risk stratification are needed to guide optimal treatment for men with intermediate risk prostate cancer.

Holmium laser prostatectomy in a tertiary Italian center: A prospective cost analysis in comparison with bipolar TURP and open prostatectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the economic impact of Holmium laser enucleation of prostate (HoLEP) in comparison with transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) and open prostatectomy (OP). METHODS: Between January 2017 and January 2018, we prospectively enrolled 151 men who underwent HoLEP, TURP or OP at tertiary Italian center, due to bladder outflow obstruction symptoms. Patients with prostate volume ≤ 70 cc and those with prostate volume > 70 cc were scheduled for TURP or HoLEP and OP or HoLEP, respectively. Intraoperative and early post-operative functional outcomes were recorded up to 6 months follow up. Cost analysis was carried out considering direct costs (operating room [OR] utilization costs, nurse, surgeons and anesthesiologists' costs, OR disposable products costs and OR products sterilization costs), indirect costs (hospital stay costs and diagnostics costs) and global costs as sum of both direct and indirect plus general costs related to hospitalization. Cost analysis was performed comparing patients referred to TURP and HoLEP with prostate volume ≤ 70 cc and men underwent OP and HoLEP with prostate volume > 70 cc respectively. RESULTS: Overall, 53 (35.1%), 51 (33.7%) and 47 (31.1%) were scheduled to HoLEP, TURP and OP, respectively. Both TURP, HoLEP and OP proved to effectively improve urinary symptoms related to BPE. Considering patients with prostate volume ≤ 70 cc, median global cost of HoLEP was similar to median global cost of TURP (2151.69 € vs. 2185.61 €, respectively; p = 0.61). Considering patients with prostate volume > 70 cc, median global cost of HoLEP was found to be significantly lower than median global cost of OP (2174.15 € vs. 4064.97 €, respectively; p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Global costs of HoLEP are comparable to those of TURP, offering a cost saving of only 11.4 € in favor of HoLEP. Conversely, HoLEP proved to be a strong competitor of OP because of significant global cost sparing amounting to 1890.82 € in favor of HoLEP.

Healthcare costs among men with favorable risk prostate cancer managed with observation strategies versus immediate treatment in an integrated healthcare system.

OBJECTIVE: This study explored short-term healthcare costs of men managed with observation strategies (OBS) vs immediate treatment (IMT) for favorable risk prostate cancer (PCa) from the Geisinger Health System, a single integrated health system in Pennsylvania, as evidence from the community setting is limited. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using electronic health records from men aged ≥40 years diagnosed with favorable risk PCa (T1 or 2, PSA ≤15 ng/mL, Gleason ≤7 [3 + 4]) between January 2005 and October 2013. Prostate-specific healthcare costs were compared between the OBS and IMT cohorts in men with ≥3 years of follow-up and available linked claims data. Sub-group analyses focused on those men with low-risk PCa (T1-2a, PSA ≤10 ng/mL, Gleason ≤6). Sensitivity analysis stratified the study sample in three cohorts: OBS, switched from OBS to definitive treatment (OBS switch), and IMT. RESULTS: A total of 352 patients were included (OBS = 70 and IMT = 282). Compared with IMT, OBS resulted in significantly lower cumulative PCa-related healthcare costs for the first 3 years ($15,785 vs $23,177; p-value <.001). The main cost drivers were outpatient procedures. The OBS cohort had the lowest incremental PCa-related healthcare costs in the first 3 years (OBS: $5,011 vs OBS switch: $26,040, net cost savings = $21,029, p < .001; OBS: $5,011 vs IMT: $24,064, net cost savings = $19,053, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In favorable risk PCa, half of the patients who initially chose OBS eventually underwent treatment after their PCa diagnosis. As expected, OBS was associated with reduced disease management costs compared with IMT.

A randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) versus transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) in the National Health Service (NHS) - the UNBLOCS trial: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) has been the standard operation for benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) for 40 years, with approximately 25,000 procedures performed annually, and has remained largely unchanged. It is generally a successful operation, but has well-documented risks for the patient. Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) vaporises and resects the prostate using a surgical technique similar to TURP. The small amount of study data currently available suggests that ThuVARP may have certain advantages over TURP, including reduced blood loss and shorter hospital stay, earlier return to normal activities, and shorter duration of catheterisation. DESIGN: A multicentre, pragmatic, randomised, controlled, parallel-group trial of ThuVARP versus standard TURP in men with BPO. Four hundred and ten men suitable for prostate surgery were randomised to receive either ThuVARP or TURP at four university teaching hospitals, and three district general hospitals. The key aim of the trial is to determine whether ThuVARP is equivalent to TURP judged on both the patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and the maximum urine flow rate (Qmax) at 12 months post-surgery. DISCUSSION: The general population has an increased life expectancy. As men get older their prostates enlarge, potentially causing BPO, which often requires surgery. Therefore, as the population ages, more prostate operations are needed to relieve obstruction. There is hence sustained interest in the condition and increasing need to find safer techniques than TURP. Various laser techniques have become available but none are widely used in the NHS because of lengthy training required for surgeons or inferior performance on clinical outcomes. Promising initial evidence from one RCT shows that ThuVARP has equivalent clinical effectiveness when compared to TURP, as well as other potential advantages. As ThuVARP uses a technique similar to that used in TURP, the learning curve is short, potentially making it also very quickly generalisable. This randomised study is designed to provide the high-quality evidence, in an NHS setting, with a range of patient-reported, clinical and cost-effectiveness outcomes, which will underpin and inform future NICE guidance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN00788389 . Registered on 20 September 2013.

A Multidimensional Analysis of Prostate Surgery Costs in the United States: Robotic-Assisted versus Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: The economic value of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) in the United States is still not well understood because of limited view analyses. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to examine the costs and benefits of RALP versus retropubic radical prostatectomy from an expanded view, including hospital, payer, and societal perspectives. METHODS: We performed a model-based cost comparison using clinical outcomes obtained from a systematic review of the published literature. Equipment costs were obtained from the manufacturer of the robotic system; other economic model parameters were obtained from government agencies, online resources, commercially available databases, an advisory expert panel, and the literature. Clinical point estimates and care pathways based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines were used to model costs out to 3 years. Hospital costs and costs incurred for the patients' postdischarge complications, adjuvant and salvage radiation treatment, incontinence and potency treatment, and lost wages during recovery were considered. Robotic system costs were modeled in two ways: as hospital overhead (hospital overhead calculation: RALP-H) and as a function of robotic case volume (robotic amortization calculation: RALP-R). All costs were adjusted to year 2014 US dollars. RESULTS: Because of more favorable clinical outcomes over 3 years, RALP provided hospital ($1094 savings with RALP-H, $341 deficit with RALP-R), payer ($1451), and societal ($1202) economic benefits relative to retropubic radical prostatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Monte-Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated a 38% to 99% probability that RALP provides cost savings (depending on the perspective). Higher surgical consumable costs are offset by a decreased hospital stay, lower complication rate, and faster return to work.

Economic Evaluation Study (Cheer Compliant) Laser Prostatectomy for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Outcomes and Cost-effectiveness.

To determine which surgical treatment for lower urinary tract symptoms, which is suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), is more cost-effective and yields a better patient's preference. Treatment outcome, cost, and perioperative complications to assess the treatment effectiveness of using laser prostatectomy as a treatment for BPH were investigated in this study.This retrospective study included 100 patients who underwent transurethral resection of prostate (TUR-P) and another 100 patients who received high-powered 120 W (GreenLight HPS) laser prostatectomy between 2005 and 2011.International Prostate Symptom Score and uroflow parameters were collected before the surgery and the uroflow and postvoiding residual volumes were evaluated before treatment and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment. The results of 100 treatments after HPS laser prostatectomy were compared with the results of 100 patients who received TUR-P from the same surgeon. Complication rates and admission costs were analyzed.From 2005 to 2011, 200 consecutive patients underwent endoscopic surgery. Study participants were men with BPH with mean age of 71.3 years old. The peak flow rate went from 8.47 to 15.83 mL/s for 3 months after laser prostatectomy. Laser therapy groups showed better improvement in symptom score, shortened length of stay, and quality of life score when compared with those of TUR-P procedures. The estimated cost for laser prostatectomy was high when compared with cost of any other TUR-P procedural option at Chang Gung Hospital (P = 0.001). All admission charges were similar except for the cost of the laser equipment and accessories (mainly the laser fiber) (P = 0.001). Due to this cost of equipment, it increased the total admission charges for the laser group and therefore made the cost for the laser group higher than that of the TUR-P group.Perioperative complications, such as the need for checking for bleeding, urinary retention rate or urosepsis rate within 30 days after the surgery, held no significant differences between both groups.Compared with alternative treatment options, laser prostatectomy of the prostate is clinically effective but yields a high cost of treatment for symptomatic BPH.

HoLEP has come of age.

INTRODUCTION: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are a common complaint and although can be adequately managed with medication, surgery remains the mainstay of treatment. Transurethral resection has been the reference 'gold standard', but due to its complications and issues with larger volume prostates, many alternatives have been developed and assessed. Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) has shown excellent efficacy, durability and safety and has become an important alternative that has gained guideline approval. RESULTS: HoLEP has been shown to have outcomes that are equivalent or better than TURP in both urodynamic measurements and symptom scores. Its outcomes have been proven to be durable and cost-effective. HoLEP has fewer and less serious complications when compared to the current reference standard, its use also allows earlier removal of catheter and hospital discharge. Appropriate mentoring reduces many of the issues associated with the steep learning curve, thus removing the main hurdle to its widespread adoption as the surgical treatment of choice for LUTS due to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). CONCLUSIONS: HoLEP fulfils all of the requirements as an alternative/replacement for TURP and open prostatectomy, with equivalent outcomes and reduced complications. With improvements in the learning curve, it could now be considered the true gold standard surgical treatment for BPH. HoLEP has come of age.

Identification of underserved areas for urologic cancer care.

BACKGROUND: The delivery of urologic oncology care is susceptible to regional variation. In the current study, the authors sought to define patterns of care for patients undergoing genitourinary cancer surgery to identify underserved areas for urologic cancer care in Washington State. METHODS: The authors accessed the Washington State Comprehensive Hospital Abstract Reporting System from 2003 through 2007. They identified patients undergoing radical prostatectomy, radical cystectomy (RC), partial nephrectomy (PN), radical nephrectomy, and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). TURP was included for comparison as a reference procedure indicative of access to urologic care. Hospital service areas (HSAs) are where the majority of local patients are hospitalized; hospital referral regions (HRR) are where most patients receive tertiary care. The authors created multivariate hierarchical logistic regression models to examine patient and HSA characteristics associated with the receipt of urologic oncology care out of the HRR for each procedure. RESULTS: Greater than one-half of patients went out of their HRR in 7 HSAs (11%) for radical prostatectomy, 3 HSAs (5%) for radical nephrectomy, 10 HSAs (15%) for PN, and 14 HSAs (22%) for RC. No HSAs had high export rates for TURP. Few patient factors were found to be associated with surgical care out of the HRR. High-export HSAs for PN and RC exhibited lower socioeconomic characteristics than low-export HSAs, adjusting for HSA population, race, and HSA procedure rates for PN and RC. CONCLUSIONS: Patients living in areas with lower socioeconomic status have a greater need to travel for complex urologic surgery. Consideration of geographic delineation in the delivery of urologic oncology care may aid in regional quality improvement initiatives.

Cost-effectiveness analysis at 2 years of surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia by photoselective vaporization of the prostate with GreenLight-Photo vaporization 120 W versus transurethral resection of the prostate.

INTRODUCTION: Transurethral resection of the prostate is the gold standard of surgical treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms associated to benign prostate hyperplasia. The new Green Light Photovaporization has been shown to be an alternative that is as effective for this condition as the transurethral resection of the prostate. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficiency of Green Light Photovaporization 120 W versus transurethral resection of the prostate in the treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) in a 2-year time horizon from the perspective of the Spanish health service perspective. METHODS: A cost utility analysis was performed retrospectively with the data from 98 patients treated sequentially with transurethral resection of the prostate (n: 50) and Green Light Photovaporization 120 W (n: 48). A Markov model was designed to estimate the cost (2012€) and results (quality adjusted life years) in a 2-year time horizon. RESULTS: The total cost associated to Green Light Photovaporization 120 W treatment was less (3,377€; 95% CI: 3,228; 3,537) than that of the transurethral resection of the prostate (3,770€; 95% CI: 3,579; 3,945). The determining factor of the cost was the surgical phase (difference: -450€; 95% CI: -625; -158) because admission to hospital after surgery was not necessary with the GreenLight-PhotoVaporization. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment of BPH patients with GreenLight-PhotoVaporization 120 W is more efficient than transurethral resection of the prostate in the surgical treatment of benign prostate hyperplasia as it has similar effectiveness and lower cost (-393€; 95% CI: -625; -158).

[Rage against the machine -- necessity of robotic assisted prostatectomy]. / Die Macht der Maschinen - Notwendigkeit der roboterassistierten Prostatektomie.

During the last decade urologists have faced a dramatic increase in robotic surgery. Despite the exceptional acceptance of this technique there is a complete lack of evidence for the equi-efficacy or superiority of this technique compared to open or laparoscopic prostatectomy. There is now an increasing body of evidence for the evaluation of robotic assisted prostatectomy. Robotic assisted prostatectomy is a safe procedure. The rate of technical failure is small. The rate of surgical complications is comparable with that of open or conventional laparoscopic prostatectomy. Similar to the conventional laparoscopic prostatectomy there is a trend for a minor blood loss and a smaller transfusion rate compared to the retropubic approach. In recent meta-analyses there is no advatage regarding the oncological or functional outcome for robotic prostatectomy. Neither the rate of positive surgical margins nor the rate of biochemical recurrence favours robotic prostatectomy. Regarding functional outcome some publications describe better results for urinary and sexual function for robotic surgery. Careful evaluation of these data reveals a low level of evidence due to a strong bias in favour of robotic surgery. In contrast, recent analysis of "Medicare" data reveal a considerable poorer urinary function after robotic prostatectomy compared to open retropubic prostatectomy. The Urological Board of the Helios Hospital Group does not recommend the use of a robotic device for radical prostatectomy.

[Valorisation of brachytherapy and medico-economic considerations]. / Curiethérapie : valorisation et aspects médico-économiques.

Economic data in the literature for brachytherapy are still sparse and heterogeneous, with few controlled prospective studies and a perspective most often limited to those of the provider (health insurances). Moreover, these observation and conclusions are difficult to generalize in France. The prospective health economic studies performed in France in the framework of a national program to sustain innovative and costly therapies (STIC program) launched by the French cancer national institute are therefore of most importance. With the exception of prostate brachytherapy with permanent seeds, the valorisation of the brachytherapy activity by the French national health insurance does not take into account the degree of complexity and the real costs supported by health institutions (i.e. no specific valorisation for 3D image-based treatment planning and dose optimization and for the use of pulsed dose rate brachytherapy).

Comparative cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted and standard laparoscopic prostatectomy as alternatives to open radical prostatectomy for treatment of men with localised prostate cancer: a health technology assessment from the perspective of the UK National Health Service.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy is increasingly used compared with a standard laparoscopic technique, but it remains uncertain whether potential benefits offset higher costs. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of robotic prostatectomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a care pathway description and model-based cost-utility analysis. We studied men with localised prostate cancer able to undergo either robotic or laparoscopic prostatectomy for cure. We used data from a meta-analysis, other published literature, and costs from the UK National Health Service and commercial sources. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Care received by men for 10 yr following radical prostatectomy was modelled. Clinical events, their effect on quality of life, and associated costs were synthesised assuming 200 procedures were performed annually. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Over 10 yr, robotic prostatectomy was on average (95% confidence interval [CI]) £1412 (€1595) (£1304 [€1473] to £1516 [€1713]) more costly than laparoscopic prostatectomy but more effective with mean (95% CI) gain in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 0.08 (0.01-0.15). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £18 329 (€20 708) with an 80% probability that robotic prostatectomy was cost effective at a threshold of £30 000 (€33 894)/QALY. The ICER was sensitive to the throughput of cases and the relative positive margin rate favouring robotic prostatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Higher costs of robotic prostatectomy may be offset by modest health gain resulting from lower risk of early harms and positive margin, provided >150 cases are performed each year. Considerable uncertainty persists in the absence of directly comparative randomised data.

Differential adoption of laser prostatectomy for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether socioeconomic environment affects the adoption of new laser technology for treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). METHODS: Using all payer data, we identified all discharges for laser prostatectomy or transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) performed in Florida (2001-2009). We determined whether or not each of 114 healthcare markets (Hospital Service Areas) offered laser prostatectomy or TURP and assessed the market-level socioeconomic environment using a previously described ZIP code-based summary score. We used generalized estimating equations to examine the association of socioeconomic environment with offering laser prostatectomy or TURP, adjusting for additional market characteristics. RESULTS: Better socioeconomic environment was associated with offering laser prostatectomy (odds ratio 1.21 for each 1 point increase in summary score, 95% confidence interval 1.08-1.35, P <.001). Adoption of laser prostatectomy over time was more rapid in markets with superior socioeconomic environment (P <.001 for interaction of socioeconomic summary score with year), such that by study midpoint, 82% of advantaged vs 54% of disadvantaged markets had adopted this new technology. In contrast, socioeconomic environment had only minimal effects on whether or not a market offered TURP. CONCLUSION: We found delayed access to new laser technology in more disadvantaged socioeconomic environments, which may translate into disparities in certain outcomes after transurethral surgery for BPH.

Primary treatments for clinically localised prostate cancer: a comprehensive lifetime cost-utility analysis.

UNLABELLED: WHAT'S KNOWN ON THE SUBJECT? AND WHAT DOES THE STUDY ADD?: Multiple treatment alternatives exist for localised prostate cancer, with few high-quality studies directly comparing their comparative effectiveness and costs. The present study is the most comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis to date for localised prostate cancer, conducted with a lifetime horizon and accounting for survival, health-related quality-of-life, and cost impact of secondary treatments and other downstream events, as well as primary treatment choices. The analysis found minor differences, generally slightly favouring surgical methods, in quality-adjusted life years across treatment options. However, radiation therapy (RT) was consistently more expensive than surgery, and some alternatives, e.g. intensity-modulated RT for low-risk disease, were dominated - that is, both more expensive and less effective than competing alternatives. OBJECTIVE: To characterise the costs and outcomes associated with radical prostatectomy (open, laparoscopic, or robot-assisted) and radiation therapy (RT: dose-escalated three-dimensional conformal RT, intensity-modulated RT, brachytherapy, or combination), using a comprehensive, lifetime decision analytical model. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to follow hypothetical men with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk prostate cancer over their lifetimes after primary treatment; probabilities of outcomes were based on an exhaustive literature search yielding 232 unique publications. In each Markov cycle, patients could have remission, recurrence, salvage treatment, metastasis, death from prostate cancer, and death from other causes. Utilities for each health state were determined, and disutilities were applied for complications and toxicities of treatment. Costs were determined from the USA payer perspective, with incorporation of patient costs in a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Differences across treatments in quality-adjusted life years across methods were modest, ranging from 10.3 to 11.3 for low-risk patients, 9.6-10.5 for intermediate-risk patients and 7.8-9.3 for high-risk patients. There were no statistically significant differences among surgical methods, which tended to be more effective than RT methods, with the exception of combined external beam + brachytherapy for high-risk disease. RT methods were consistently more expensive than surgical methods; costs ranged from $19 901 (robot-assisted prostatectomy for low-risk disease) to $50 276 (combined RT for high-risk disease). These findings were robust to an extensive set of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis found small differences in outcomes and substantial differences in payer and patient costs across treatment alternatives. These findings may inform future policy discussions about strategies to improve efficiency of treatment selection for localised prostate cancer.

Comparisons of perioperative outcomes and costs between open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a propensity-score matching analysis based on the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database.

We compared perioperative outcomes and costs between open and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. The Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database, including cases from 2007 to 2010, was used by one-to-one propensity-score matching. The following items were compared: complication rate; homologous and autologous transfusion rate; first cystography day and cystography repeat rate; anesthesia time; postoperative length of stay; and costs. Multivariate analyses were carried out by including age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, T stage, hospital volume and hospital academic status as variables. As a result, among 15 616 open and 1997 laparoscopic radical prostatectomies, 1627 propensity-score matched pairs were generated. The laparoscopic approach showed a better overall complication rate (3.4% vs 5.0%), homologous transfusion rate (3.3% vs 9.2%), autologous transfusion rate (44.9% vs 79.3%), first cystography day (mean 6th vs 7th day), mean postoperative length of stay (mean 11 vs 13 days), and cost without surgery and anesthesia (mean $7965 vs $9235; all P < 0.001). Anesthesia time was longer (mean 345 vs 285 min) and total cost was higher (mean $14 980 vs $12 356) for the laparoscopic approach (both P < 0.001). The secondary cystography rates were comparable between the groups (18.3% vs 15.7%, P = 0.144). The multivariate analyses showed similar trends. In conclusion, these findings confirm several benefits of laparoscopy over open approach for radical prostatectomy.